China and Co-operation

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21314, 6 November 1934, Page 10

China and Co-operation

A cable message printed on Saturday contained some remarks by Dr. Kohiang-yih, Consul-General for China in New York, to the effect that such doctrines as " Asia for the " Asiatics " and " The Monroe doc- " trine for Asia " were alien to the Chinese conception of international intercourse. "We reject such "national or regional isolation," he said. The announcement is somewhat striking, even in a world which has become very used to the words international co-operation. China has not readily admitted outside influences, and the idea of cooperation has, except in most recent years, been foreign to her. Other nations, in their dealings with China in the nineteenth century, found her living on her past, proud of her civilisation, and possessed of a contempt for the " barbarians." Attempts at penetration by diplomatic methods failed; and it was the wars of 1844 and 1856-60 which secured the entrance of missionaries, right of travel under passport,. certain extra-territorial rights, and the opening of some Chinese ports to foreign trade. England, France, Germany, and Russia evolved the same policies vis-a-vis China: to secure a territorial foothold by leases, commercial privileges by concessions, and 'protection for the persons and property of their nationals by the rights of extra-territoriality. American statesmen, on the other hand, fearing that spheres of influence were merely a step towards partition, fought vigorously for the " open door" policy. The Washington Conference marked the triumph of the American point of view. The Nine Power Treaty affirmed the principle of the " open " door" and proclaimed the territorial integrity of China; and from that time on the voluntary surrender of concessions proceeded apace. But it must be confessed that the promise of the Washington treaties has not been realised. Had these treaties been adequately equipped with sanctions and had the powers shown a more active desire to maintain them, the principle of the " open door " might have been permanently established. The success of Japanese aggression in Manchuria and of Russian penetration in the western provinces threaten to re-establish the old system of concessions and spheres of interest. It is pleasing to hear from Dr. Kohiang-yih that China herself is as much opposed to spheres of influence as she is to policies of selfsufficiency and isolation. After her experience of intercourse with the Western world it would be understandable if she relapsed into an embittered nationalism. But it must be recognised that if the wise counsels of men like Dr. Kohiang-yih are to prevail in China, the powers must be prepared to stand for the " open " door " more firmly than they have in the past. It is by now abundantly clear that China will not be able to work out her destiny peacefully unless she is guaranteed against exploitation and aggression.